Tag Archives: author

SJW’s (SJW) CEO Richard Roth on Q3 2015 Results – Earnings Call Transcript

SJW Corp. (NYSE: SJW ) Q3 2015 Earnings Conference Call October 29, 2015 01:00 PM ET Executives Suzy Papazian – General Counsel Richard Roth – Chairman, President and CEO James Lynch – CFO Analysts Operator Good day, ladies and gentlemen and welcome to the SJW Corp. Third Quarter Financial Results Conference Call. At this time, all participants are in a listen-only mode. Later, we will conduct a question-and-answer session and instructions will follow at that time. [Operator Instructions] As a reminder, this conference call may be recorded. I would now like to turn the conference over to Suzy Papazian, General Counsel. You may begin. Suzy Papazian Thank you, operator. Welcome to the third quarter 2015 financial results conference call for SJW Corp. Presenting today are Richard Roth, Chairman of the Board, President and Chief Executive Officer; and James Lynch, Chief Financial Officer. Before we begin today’s presentation, I would like to remind you that this presentation and related materials posted on our website may contain forward-looking statements. These statements are based on estimates and assumptions made by the company in light of its experience, historical trends, current conditions and expected future developments as well as other factors that the company believes are appropriate under the circumstances. Many factors could cause the company’s actual results and performance to differ materially from those expressed or implied by the forward-looking statements. For a description of some of the factors that could cause actual results to be different from statements in this presentation, we refer you to the press release and to our most recent Forms 10-K and 10-Q filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, copies of which may be obtained at www.sjwcorp.com. All forward-looking statements are made as of today, and SJW Corp. disclaims any duty to update or revise such statements. You will have the opportunity to ask questions at the end of the presentation. As a reminder, this webcast is being recorded and an archive of the webcast will be available until January 25, 2016. You can access the press release and the webcast at our corporate website. I will now turn the call over to Rich. Richard Roth Thank you, Suzy. Welcome everyone and thank you for joining us. On the call with me today are Jim Lynch, our Chief Financial Officer and Palle Jensen, our Senior Vice President of Regulatory Affairs. For the first time today, we are incorporating the use of slides in our call for those who would like to follow along. Please visit our website at www.sjwcorp.com to view them. SJW’s third quarter results reflect lower usage and the regulatory delay associated with recovery of 2014 and 2015 loss sales. Despite the regulatory delay that has impacted earnings, the fundamental elements that drive our business and lead to sustain profitability remain strong. As evidence of SJW’s strong fundamentals, SJWC’s and SJWTX’s capital expenditure programs including the Montevina Water Treatment plant upgrade project are on track to add $108 million of capital improvements in 2015. To help put San Jose Water Company’s capital expenditure programs into perspective, please note that the company’s rate base has grown at a compound annual growth rate of over 8% since 2010. Looking ahead, San Jose Water Company is seeking regulatory approval in its pending general rate case to invest approximately $230 million in 2016 and 2017. SJW’s meticulous plan and capably executing capital program is essential in ensuring that our customers continue to receive high quality and reliable water service. Specifically, the renovation of the Montevina Water Treatment plant will markedly improve SJW’s ability to meet the region’s growing water supply challenges by treating a much broader spectrum of source water. While regulatory lag seems to have become the norm, the California and Texas regulatory environments remain generally constructive as evidenced by their support of rates and regulatory mechanisms that balance the need for continued investments with the need for conservation and affordability. An important example of California’s supporting regulatory regime is the California Public Utility Commission’s authorization for San Jose Water Company to record in memorandum accounts the difference between authorized and actual revenue, net of variable production costs as long as water use restrictions remain in effect. We were also encouraged that California regulators appear to be adopting sales forecasts that reflect and support our customers’ conservation efforts, thus reducing the need for additional charges to recover the difference between authorized and actual customer usage. SJWTX, Inc., our Texas Water and Waste Water Utility continues to experience robust growth in connections and revenue. Additional, SJWTX’s regional business model helps ensure that we’re able to provide high quality sustainable and reasonably priced water service as we sensibly expand our operations. I would now turn the call over to Jim, who will provide you with a detailed review and analysis of the third quarter results and other financial commentary. After Jim’s remarks, I will provide additional information on our regulatory filings, water supplies and other key operational and business matters. Jim? James Lynch Thank you, Rich. Net income for the quarter was $9.5 million or $0.46 per diluted share. This compares to $38.4 million or $1.88 per diluted share for the third quarter of 2014. Year-to-date, net income was $21.7 million or $1.06 per diluted share, compared with $46.1 million or $2.26 per diluted share for the same period in 2014. Third quarter revenue was $83 million, a 34% decrease over the third quarter of 2014. And year-to-date, 2015 revenue was $217.5 million, a 13% decrease over the first nine months of 2014. A significant portion of the change in our operating results was attributable to the decision in our 2012 general rate case decision in California that occurred in the third quarter of 2014. Recall that we recognized $46.5 million of revenue at the time the decision was received. This included true-up revenue, a revenue related to prior periods of approximately $37.7 million or $1.09 per diluted share recognized in the third quarter of 2014. Year-to-date, true up revenue and diluted per share earnings related to prior periods that were recorded in 2014 was approximately $21.9 million and $0.68 per diluted share respectively. Our 2015 quarterly and year-to-date results reflect the impact of rate increases that contributed approximately $12.4 million in new revenue or $0.38 per diluted share and $33.2 million in revenue or $1.02 per diluted share respectively. Results also reflect the impact of lower usage in our California service area due to the drought and related water conservation activities. In response to the drought, the Santa Clara Valley Water District set its 2015 water usage target at 30% below 2013 usage levels. This was followed by the CPUC’s authorization in June of 2015 to activate San Jose Water Company’s water shortage contingency plan that includes mandatory water usage reductions and the imposition of drought surcharges. As a result, we experienced a decline in customer usage of 12% in the third quarter, resulting in a $15.3 million reduction in revenue compared to the third quarter of 2014 or $0.47 per diluted share. Year-to-date, customer usage declined 11%, resulting in a $28.4 million revenue reduction or $0.87 per diluted share compared to the same period in the prior year. The revenue impact of lower usage due to water conservation is being tracked for future recovery in the company’s Mandatory Conservation Revenue Adjustment Memorandum Account or MCRAMA. During the 2015 third quarter the balance in the MCRAMA increased approximately $15.7 million to $25.6 million. In March of 2015, the company submitted a filing with the CPUC for recovery of approximately $9.6 million of the balance related to the period from April 1, 2014 to December 31, 2014. The company will recognize amounts approved by the CPUC under this filing net of any previously recognized supply balancing amounts once approval is received. We currently anticipate this will occur in the 2015 fourth quarter. Amounts accumulated in the MCRAMA for 2015 and beyond will be recognized once recovery is determined to be probable and other revenue recognition criteria have been met. We began collecting drought surcharges under our Water Shortage Contingency Plan in June of 2015. Through the third quarter of 2015 collections were $6.3 million. The collected surcharge amounts are not recorded as revenue rather they are recorded as regulatory liabilities. Once we begin recognizing the 2015 MCRAMA revenue, we will offset amounts due from customer surcharges with amounts collected in the drought surcharge liability account. In the meantime, drought surcharge collections provide the company with additional operating cash flows. The company is also tracking drought-related operational and administrative costs for future recovery in a Mandatory Conservation Memorandum Account or in MCMA. As of September 30, 2015, $5,500 was accumulated in the MCMA. The drought surcharge account, MCRAMA and MCMA will remain in effect until state water drought water restrictions are lifted. Lastly, in 2015 our year-to-date results include $1.9 million in revenue or $0.12 per diluted share related to the CPUC’s decision in the first quarter on our limited rehearing request on the effective date of our 2014 rates. Turning to water production, the lower usage we’ve experienced in both our California and Texas service areas and California due to water conservation and in Texas due to higher than normal rainfall has resulted in lower cost production. For the quarter, usage declines reduced production costs by $9.5 million or $0.29 per diluted share and year-to-date by $18.4 million or $0.57 per diluted share. This cost reduction was partially offset by the impact of increases in purchased water expenses and ground water production charges of $5.5 million or $0.17 per diluted share for the quarter and $9.3 million or $0.28 per diluted share year-to-date. Also recall that through the first nine months of 2015 we used 1.5 billion gallons of surface water compared to 230 million gallons in the same period of 2014. The use of surface water in the third quarter was not significant. However, year-to-date surface water use resulted in a $3.1 million or $0.10 per diluted share reduction in water production expenses. We do not anticipate any meaningful benefit from surface water supplies through the remainder of 2015. Non-production operating expenses included a $1.1 million increase or $0.03 per diluted share for the quarter and $2.7 million increase or $0.08 per diluted share year-to-date in pension expenses. The increase was primarily driven by changes in the underlying assumptions used to calculate periodic pension costs. In addition both the quarter and year-to-date include higher cost incurred in connection with our 2015 California general rate case and conservation activities in our California service area. Other expense and income in the third quarter of 2015 included the sale of multiple non-utility real estate properties for a gain of approximately $1.9 million or $0.06 per diluted share. Other expense and income in 2014 included a gain on the sale of California Water Service Company stock in the second quarter of $2 million or $0.06 per diluted share and sales of real estate investment properties in Texas and California in the second and third quarter respectively of approximately $300,000 each or $0.02 per diluted share. Another point of note, in the third quarter of 2014, the company recorded an income tax benefit of $4.8 million or $0.23 per diluted share related to the adoption of the Department of Treasury and Internal Revenue Service tangible property regulations. This was for the years 2013 and previous. Year-to-date the company also recorded a benefit of $880,000 or $0.04 per diluted share on the recognition of enterprise zone tax credits in 2014; similar amounts were recorded in 2015. Turning to our capital expenditure program, we added approximately $25 million in utility plant during the third quarter bringing our 2015 total to $63 million or approximately 58% of our 2015 planned utility plant capital expenditures. We anticipate completing approximately 90% of our planned utility plant capital budget amount in 2015. In addition, we have revised the timing of our planned capital expenditures on our Montevina plant retrofit project putting more of the budgeted cost in 2016 and 2017 as a result of design revisions and contract finalization. Including the Montevina plant retrofit project, we are on target to add approximately $108 million in utility plant in 2015 growing rate base in both our California and Texas service areas. From a liquidity perspective, year-to-date cash flows from operations increased by approximately $26 million or 58% due in large part to higher income and the collection of a $6 million income tax receivable that was generated at the end of 2014. In addition, we experienced a $10.6 million benefit from the collection of revenue in connection with the 2012 California rate case decision. Recall that the $46.5 million we received in the decision is being collected over a 36-month period that commenced in October 2014. At the end of the quarter we had $75.8 million available under our bank lines of credit for the short-term financing of utility planned additions and operating activities. The borrowing rate on credit line advances during the year averaged 1.3%. With that, I will stop and turn the call back over to Rich. Richard Roth Thank you Jim. In a testament to the efficacy of San Jose Water Company’s stout management plan, customers exceeded the conservation target set by the State Water Resources Control Board and the Santa Clara Valley Water District, our wholesale water supply. As a result, water levels in our local groundwater basins have rebounded, thus minimizing the existential threat of subsidence. It’s worth noting and plotting the tremendous response from our customers to the conservation mandate, their response has been enormously important in protecting the regions critical underground storage basin. San Jose Water Company’s ability to respond quickly and effectively to the vagaries of California’s water supply requires a comprehensive communications program to engage and inform customers and stakeholders. We have taken important steps to establish and maintain a web-based communication program that is the cornerstone of our efforts to effectively deliver timely and relevant customer information. Now let’s turn our attention to regulatory affairs, where San Jose Water Company’s 2015 general rate case is being processed by the California Public Utilities Commission. We anticipate the CPUC’s final decision by the end of 2015 for new rates for the years 2016, ’17, and ’18. In the event a final decision is not reached by the end of this year, San Jose Water Company will file for interim rates effective January 1st 2016. The interim rate filing is very important because it ensures that regardless of regulatory delay, new rates will be effective retroactive to January 1st 2016. San Jose Water Company’s Mandatory Conservation Revenue Adjustment Memorandum Account or MCRAMA established on March 26, 2014 allows the company to track revenue shortfalls net of production costs associated with reduced sales resulting from government mandated water restrictions. On March 26, 2015, the company filed for collection of $9.6 million associated with sales lost during the period April 1, 2014 through December 31, 2014. A decision on that filing is expected in late 2015. On September 20, San Jose Water Company received authorization to increase its revenue requirement by $274,721 via a rate base offset for planned additions related to the Montevina Water Treatment Plant upgrade project. More importantly, Montevina project will allow San Jose Water Company to maximize the use of our low-cost high-quality surface water supply for the benefit of our customers. Construction began in late September this year and the project is expected to be substantially complete by the end of 2017. When complete, the project will add a total of $62 million in utility plants and service in addition to the capital additions contained in San Jose Water Company’s general rate case proceeding. Despite the many instances of regulatory lacks, San Jose Water Company continues to constructively engage with regulators and to ensure that all filings are diligently processed. With the aforementioned strong fundamentals in place, San Jose Water Company and SJW Corp. continue to refine our business processes and strategies to effectively respond to the vicissitudes in weather, regulatory rulings, and economic conditions. Over the long haul, we remain confident in our ability to deliver sustained growth and profitability, earnings and dividends. With that I will turn the call back to the operator for questions. Question-and-Answer Session Operator James Lynch Okay, thank you operator. Before we end the call, I’d like to pull up one more slide, our earnings bridge for the quarter. The earnings bridge starts with our reported 2014 Q3 quarterly diluted earnings per share and then it reconciles the impact of activity reported quarter over quarter to get to our Q3 2015 quarterly earnings per share. We thought that that would assist you following along on the website with understanding the different components that went into driving our Q3 2015 revenue. With that Rich? Richard Roth Thank you everyone for joining us, we look forward to talking to you with our year-end results. Operator Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for participating in today’s conference. That does conclude today’s call. You may all disconnect. Have a great day everyone. Copyright policy: All transcripts on this site are the copyright of Seeking Alpha. However, we view them as an important resource for bloggers and journalists, and are excited to contribute to the democratization of financial information on the Internet. (Until now investors have had to pay thousands of dollars in subscription fees for transcripts.) So our reproduction policy is as follows: You may quote up to 400 words of any transcript on the condition that you attribute the transcript to Seeking Alpha and either link to the original transcript or to www.SeekingAlpha.com. All other use is prohibited. THE INFORMATION CONTAINED HERE IS A TEXTUAL REPRESENTATION OF THE APPLICABLE COMPANY’S CONFERENCE CALL, CONFERENCE PRESENTATION OR OTHER AUDIO PRESENTATION, AND WHILE EFFORTS ARE MADE TO PROVIDE AN ACCURATE TRANSCRIPTION, THERE MAY BE MATERIAL ERRORS, OMISSIONS, OR INACCURACIES IN THE REPORTING OF THE SUBSTANCE OF THE AUDIO PRESENTATIONS. IN NO WAY DOES SEEKING ALPHA ASSUME ANY RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY INVESTMENT OR OTHER DECISIONS MADE BASED UPON THE INFORMATION PROVIDED ON THIS WEB SITE OR IN ANY TRANSCRIPT. USERS ARE ADVISED TO REVIEW THE APPLICABLE COMPANY’S AUDIO PRESENTATION ITSELF AND THE APPLICABLE COMPANY’S SEC FILINGS BEFORE MAKING ANY INVESTMENT OR OTHER DECISIONS. If you have any additional questions about our online transcripts, please contact us at: transcripts@seekingalpha.com . Thank you!

CMS Energy’s (CMS) CEO John Russell on Q3 2015 Results – Earnings Call Transcript

CMS Energy Corp. (NYSE: CMS ) Q3 2015 Earnings Conference Call October 29, 2015 9:00 AM ET Executives Venkat Dhenuvakonda Rao – Vice President, Treasurer, Investor Relations John Russell – President and Chief Executive Officer Thomas Webb – Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer Analysts Michael Weinstein – UBS Daniel Eggers – Credit Suisse Ali Agha – SunTrust Andrew Weisel – Macquarie Capital Paul Ridzon – KeyBanc Operator Good morning, everyone, and welcome to the CMS Energy 2015 Third Quarter Results and Outlook Call. This call is being recorded. After the presentation, we will conduct a question-and-answer session. Instructions will be provided at that time. [Operator Instructions] Just a reminder, there will be a rebroadcast of this conference call today beginning at 12 PM Eastern Time, running through November 5th. The presentation is also being webcast and is available on CMS Energy’s website in the Investor Relations section. At this time, I would like to turn the call over to Mr. D.V. Rao, Vice President and Treasurer, Financial Planning and Investor Relations. Please go ahead. Venkat Dhenuvakonda Rao Good morning and thank you for joining us today. With me are John Russell, President and Chief Executive Officer; and Tom Web, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer. Our earnings new release issued earlier today and the presentation used in this webcast are available on our website. This presentation contains forward-looking statements which are subject to risks and uncertainties. All forward-looking statements should be considered in the context of the risks and other factors detailed in our SEC filings. These factors could cause CMS Energy’s and Consumers’ results to differ materially. This presentation also includes non-GAAP. A reconciliation of each of these measures to the most directly comparable GAAP measure is included in the appendix and posted in the Investor section of our website. Now, let me turn the call over to John John Russell Thank you, D.V., and good morning, everyone. Thanks for joining us on the call. I missed the last earnings calls due to emergency surgery. Now, I’m back and feeling good and I want to thank the management team for doing a great job while I was recovering. Now, let’s get to business. I’ll begin the call with an update on earnings, provide an operational and legislative update, and talk about some recent renewable energy developments and how those fit into the generation portfolio. And then I’ll turn over to Tom, he will discuss in greater detail the quarter and additional upside. Adjusted earnings per share for the first nine months were $1.51. This is up $0.09 from last year, or 10% on a weather adjusted basis. Today we are raising the bottom-end of our 2015 adjusted earnings per share guidance by $0.01 to a new range of $1.87 to a $1.89. This is up 6% to 7% over last year. In addition, we are introducing 2016 adjusted earnings per share guidance of $1.97 to $2.01. This is up 5% to 7%, which supports our consistent and year-over-year predictable performance. Here is a view of our past performance and future expectations. Our past earnings performance has been consistent and predictable. We are confident in our plan to achieve the higher end of earnings growth. Further growth up side not in our plan include more renewables, new capacity and more investment in our gas system, already one of the largest in the United States with 1.7 million customers, 29,000 miles of distribution and transmission pipeline, and over 300 billion cubic feet of annual deliveries. Operationally, we continue to have strong performance both electric and gas residential customers’ rate us in the first quartile for customer satisfaction. We continue to leverage our large gas system with low natural gas prices and the largest LDC gas storage system in the country. We have invested more than $400 million in gas transmission and compression in recent years and our customers are benefiting from that investment. Our customers are paying 60% less for natural gas than one decade ago, creating headroom for additional investments. Overall, the businesses operating at a very high level and we’re sitting company records in safety, reliability, and generation. Recently, our unit three coal plant completed a record continuous run of 679 days. That is the sixth longest ever in the United States. Our major projects continue on schedule. We’re seeing better-than-expected results from the Ludington upgrade, smart meters are being very well received by our customers and we’re adding more gas compression. In addition to the strong operational results, we’ve had a string of recent economic development wins. Our strategy has been to partner with state agencies and target companies looking to expand or site new facilities in Michigan. As these customers begin operations we should see an increase our sales and a lift to the overall economy. The update, the Michigan Energy Law continues to move closer towards the goal line. The Senate and House are closely aligned and final bills are expected after hearings are completed this month. Over the next two months we expect committee and full votes from both the Senate and the House. This will allow time for the Governor to sign the Bill into law by the end of the year. A comprehensive update will help to eliminate unfair subsidies and integrated resource plan will ensure there are sufficient resources in place to meet the supply needs of our customers and to comply with Federal and State environmental regulations. But as a reminder, our long-term plan is based on the existing 2008 Energy Law and not changes to this law. We’re not waiting for new energy legislation to introduce more renewables into our portfolio. Recently we signed a competitive wind purchase power agreement, the 100-megawatt contract spent 15 years with an option to purchase. We have broken ground on the state’s largest solar gardens at Grand Valley State University’s campus. By the end of 2016 we plan to have 10 megawatts of utility scale solar on our system. These additions to our portfolio will increase the renewable energy share beyond the 10% required in the 2008 energy law. With the retirement of seven coal units next spring, our coal mix will shrink to less than 24% of total capacity by 2017. The addition of the Jackson gas fired plant will add more flexibility while reducing operating costs. The major expansion at our Ludington Pumped Storage facility also will improve our portfolio. Overall, we’re in a good position to meet the EPA’s clean power plan. Although, there still is a lot of work to do we expect Michigan to be fully compliant with the deadline. Now, I will turn the call over to Tom to discuss the third quarter results. Thomas Webb Thanks, John. Welcome back. Thank you for joining our call today everyone. We appreciate your interest in our company and for spending time with us today. Our third quarter results of $0.53 a share reflect continued consistent progress up $0.16 from a year ago. All business units exceeded plan for strong quarter. For the first nine months, earnings at $1.51 a share were up $0.09. And on a weather normalized basis, earnings were up $0.13 or 10%. As you can see here, and as usual, strong performance positions us for delivering the high end of full year guidance. As shown in the dotted circle cost performance continues to be robust. This slide has become popular with many. Higher than planned cost reductions and favorable weather provide substantial room for O&M reinvestment. This is improves customer reliability, generates incremental productivity and accelerate planned major outage at DIG from 2015 to 2016. I just walked the DIG site and the outage is going very well. The celebration accomplishes two benefits. Accelerating the outage cost into 2015 when we have ample room to absorb it and freeing up capacity and what will be a tight market in 2016. In addition, you may recall that we will be increasing DIG’s capacity by 38 megawatts to 748 megawatts. The impact of this reinvestment in 2015 makes it easier to achieve better reliability and profit next year. While we’re on the subject to DIG, the Ferrari in garage, you can see that the engine has been purring. As capacity prices in Michigan have risen, we’ve been layering in profitable contracts. Over the next few years we could exceed our plan by as much as $20 million and as capacity prices reach the level of Kona as much as $40 million. For example, in 2017 about half our capacity and a quarter of our energy is still available. We’re discussing a contract now that could use some of this and increase profit by about $15 million to about $35 million in 2017. The bulk of our growth, of course, comes from our gas and electric utility investment. Please remember that our earnings growth is not predicated on utility sales growth or cost reductions. Upsides from these are directed to our customers. These do, however, create headroom for more capital investment. Our capital investment program over the next 10 years is 45% greater than the last 10 years, that’s 45% greater. More than a third of this investment is for gas infrastructure while many see more convergence. We’re fortunate to already have a rich mix of gas in our business. As a percent of market cash, CMS investment exceeded 10% over the last 10 years. It is at 16% over the next 10 years. The opportunity to increase investment by another 30% or $5 billion to over $20 billion continues to be practical, particularly when many of the investment opportunities do not increase customer bills. Some of the opportunities include capacity for retail open access customers should they choose to return to bundled service, more renewables, additional gas infrastructure, and replacing PPAs with new generation that will reduce customer bills. And many have commented on our model that starts with the customer and enhances results for investors. This organic capital investment program does not include any big bets. It is, however, what drives our earnings growth at 5% to 7%. We’re able to self-fund much of this growth keeping base rate increases at or below the level of inflation. Our five-year plan includes O&M cost reductions worth about 2% a year, a conservative forecast of sales growth at about half a point per year, the ability to avoid the need for block equity dilution worth about another point and other. This self-funds five points of growth without raising customer rates. This is a big win-win with earnings growth at 5% to 7% and customer rate impacts that stay below inflation. Our model is simple. Perhaps it’s a little unique. And we have many capital investment opportunities that just aren’t yet in the plan. Most of these can be accomplished without increasing customer bills. For example, replacing PPAs as they expire and the potential that customers on – may return to bundled service provides incremental capital investment without increasing customer bill. Now imagine adding the equivalent of about a new 700-megawatt gas plant every few years for the next dozen years and that on top of our plan. Here is some of the key detail around cost reduction actions, down nearly 3% a year on average since 2006. Looking ahead, we don’t do it by squeezing a rock. We achieve our reductions with good business decisions. For example, as we switch from coal plants which require substantial number of people to operate to gas generation and wind farms which require about 10% of the work force needed to run coal, we’re able to reduce our O&M by about $35 million. For another example, as we lose about 400 workers a year through attrition, new workers are added at a savings of about $40,000 each. This comes from decisions made years ago to bring new hires with defined contribution plans rather than defined-benefit pension programs and on more competitive healthcare programs. This saves another $35 million. Well, we have a clear plan for how we will continue our cost reductions in the future; we’re working on new ideas. For example, our call centers are too busy. As we introduce better service, billing, and emergency mobile application we can respond faster and reduce call center workload. This reduce costs. Second, new technology will permit us to modernize the grid more efficiently and maintain our systems at a lower cost. A line loss reduction of 1 to 2 points could save $25 million to $50 million. And third, as we improve customer quality through better work processes, we will save on overtime costs and temporary workers by simply doing it right the first time. Nearly a third of the time when we roll our trucks on a job, something goes wrong. The right parts aren’t on the truck or other parties who needed to be on site aren’t on time. We are aggressively pursuing these opportunities to improve quality for our customers. Cost reductions come for free. Let me take a minute to update you on the economy and sales outlook. Since 2010 through last year, Michigan’s GDP is up almost 14%. That is the third best State in the Union. And the largest city that we serve, Grand Rapids, is up 21%. That’s among the top 10% of all cities. You can see the strong economic data for Grand Rapids compared with Michigan and the U.S. on this slide. We continue, however, to plan sales conservatively to help ensure that this is an area of upside rather than a risk. We project that industrial sales will be up about 2% annually for the next five years, with overall sales up about half a point. With a robust business model, we have been able to consider consistent annual earnings growth of more than 7% for more than one decade, through recessions, through adverse weather, through changing policy leadership, through anything else that came our way. As we do, we hope you too see this is a sustainable model for our customers and investors for a decade ahead. Now here is our sensitivity slide that we provide each quarter to assist with assessing our prospects. You can use this slide for 2016 and 2015. There is not a lot of new news that we do here some analysts raised concerns for the sector about interest rates. That is not a surprise. In a time of volatile views about interest rates, I know I’ve been wrong for 10 years in a row. It is comforting, however, to know that our model is not very sensitive to changes in rates. Higher borrowing costs related to higher interest rates is largely offset by the impact of higher discount rates on our benefits and retiree programs and this excludes a higher return on equity should rates rise a lot. On top of this, our practice includes pre-funding parent debt two years in advance, larger than peer liquidity and maintaining a smooth maturity schedule. This further insulates us from risks to changes in interest rates. So here is our report card for 2015. We are in a good position with substantial benefits from the Arctic blast earlier in the year as well as better than planned cost reductions. We’re putting this surplus to good use with reliability improvements for our utility customers and accelerating outages to enhance the outlook for 2016. This will be our 13th year of transparent, consistent strong performance. Continuing our mindset that focuses on our customers and our investors permits us to perform well. We hope you agree we’ve achieved substantial improvements in customer value and customer satisfaction. We’ve got the best cost reduction track record in the nation, our 13th year of premium earnings includes premium dividend growth and we plan to continue this performance for some time. So thanks for your interest and thanks for your support. We would be delighted to take your questions. Operator would you please open the line. Question-and-Answer Session Operator Thank you very much, Mr. Webb. The question-and-answer session will be conducted electronically. [Operating Instruction] Our first question comes from Michael Weinstein with UBS. Please go ahead. Michael Weinstein Hi, good morning. John Russell Good morning. Michael Weinstein On the legislation, what are the key debates that are currently being talked about in the legislature as those being negotiated, I guess firmed up for eventual presentation to the committees? Are there any major changes that are now being talked about or anything significant to be looking for? John Russell Yes, let’s go through it. Right now I think they’re mostly just small adjustments to the bill. There’s some issues going on today about retail open access. When they return how many years they have to have capacity, whether it’s three years, five years, so there’s some issues there. And what’s the determining factor for if there is a shortfall Michigan. On the integrated resource plan, I think you’re going to see some debate about the difference between having the integrated resource plan and also having a renewable energy standard. So, right now these are kind of I would call adjustments to bring the bills together. We’re the very end of this process, so I would expect that they happen, but most of its really revolving around the retail open access. And as the queue continue, there’s a queue that we beyond the 10%. The customers come back, do they have the right to leave or do they stay throughout that entire time. So, that’s what’s going on today. I think an important piece to Tom and I both mentioned and we want everyone to understand, we’re not planning for any changes in our plan for the next five years that this law will change. So, if it does change, these are things that can benefit us as Tom talked about in his section of the presentation. Michael Weinstein Right. So, were you saying that right now the plan is for 5% to 7% growth? Is that something that could change upward if legislation passes that you guys will be talking about later? John Russell Right now – again with giving you guidance 5% to 7%, we continue to hit the high end of that through the years. Right now you know what our process is and Tom showed it on one of his slides. We continue to go back and reinvest the positive weather, the cost savings for customers and their value. So, we’re going to continue to do that. We see plenty of opportunities that way. On the other hand though as Tom mentioned, if the law passes and if all this stuff happens, yeah, there may be an opportunity in the future sometime to with a new plant or PPAs to do something that would cause even additional capital investment for us, which could drive some earnings growth. Michael Weinstein That’s great. Thank you very much. John Russell Yeah. You’re welcome. Operator Our next question comes from Daniel Eggers with Credit Suisse. Please go ahead. Daniel Eggers Hey. Good morning, guys. John Russell Good morning Daniel. Thomas Webb Good morning. John Russell Dan you have cold? Daniel Eggers Yeah, I do unfortunately. Great timing and earnings, unfortunately. So, anyway hopefully I’ll be better by EEI. When you think about just trying to bridge the IRP and RPS together, what is it going to look like process-wise and there’s going to be a process difference really from how you guys do planning and how you work with the commission if they are separate entities or if they are merged together. John Russell If – I want to make sure I understand, Dan. The plan, it looks like it’s going to, is an integrated resource plan. The process that is used today is the state which I give the governor a lot of credit for this. What he is doing is trying to develop the best plan possible for Michigan and he’s coordinating a lot of departments to work on this at the front-end. So there’s no surprises at the back in. What the legislation will do, we expect is to support the integrated resource plan. And what I mean by that is to hit the clean power plan target. If we need to reproduce more renewable energy, or more energy through renewable energy or have energy efficiency that will all be included in this plan. Now the good news about the law the way it is today, at least, not the law but the bills that are there is that, that would allow us to go forward and have our capital plans approved to meet the integrated resource plan and that’s the assurance we want that as we go forward to meet the plan for the clean power plan which is a federal law that the state law and regulation supports us meeting that target. And I think as many of you know many of the laws – some of the regulations that the EPA has come up with has up an overturned at the last minute. We don’t want that to affect our investments and whether it’s the right choice. So the preapproval process is important to us. Thomas Webb It’s like a big con. John Russell Exactly, which is in the current law today. Daniel Eggers Okay, got it. And then I guess just on the need for open access customers to procure capacity, do you have any feeling for the 3 or 5-year decision process, and would dig be a candidate to provide capacity to some of those customers or do you think that capacity will procured elsewhere before there a chance for the open access customers to get to it? John Russell I think the three to five years that really is – what we want here Dan and we’ve been pushing in the legislation, we want to have it material that if somebody is going out to the market and if we have to supply them later, we have to have enough time to build that asset or secure that asset. So I think five years is right. If three years is what it comes down to that probably gives us sufficient time with more risk than the five-year component? And as far as DIG, I will turned it over to Tom because he keeps talking about that for already, so I will turned it over to him. Thomas Webb I still think it’s an important as Mustang GT but whatever. The truth is, even today some of our capacity, not much, but some of our capacity actually goes to some of the AESs to serve retail open access customers. We don’t have any bias for or against that, and if there is a change in the law it’s probably going to be a gradual change anyhow people need support and we’ll provide that. I would tell you the principle purpose though of DIG is to supply folks in Michigan, where it can and to back up the utilities there is needs there. So it has a nice dual purpose and it really is a good engine because for the first time today I kind of admitted that the $20 million for 2016 probably going to look more like $35 million for 2017. It’s almost impossible at this point with the contracts that we have not to have that happen. So it is a nice opportunity. Daniel Eggers Got it. Thank you guys. John Russell Thank you. Hope you feel better. Operator Our next question comes from Ali Agha with SunTrust. Please go ahead. Ali Agha Good morning. John Russell Good morning. Ali Agha First question Tom or John, you know the investment in the company mechanism that is part of your filing of the rate cases, is that still on the table realistically given the ALJ and staff keep coming back and opposing it? What’s your sense right now on the commission’s views on that metrics? Thomas Webb It is still on the table. And for example, in smaller portions it is already being done in Michigan for utilities, but not the big picture. So not the question you are asking for covering all of your capital. So I think some people see this as a wonderful opportunity to actually have better more thorough regulation looking at the total business around CapEx rather than just a narrow slice of one year. So there are folks who think it’s a really good thing and, of course, we would be happy with it. And there are folks who think you should not look at that far. Here’s what I believe is going to happen. More and more there has been interest and people of asked us more about it in the decision-making process. So we are moving in that direction. If we move into the integrated resource planning process, it may even dump the whole idea because it may give you the confidence you need for capital investment over several years so that you kind of got that support you need. It’s a little different, but it’s kind of the same answer. So one way or another I think we are all going to be looking further out at the business together so better decisions are made for customers. John Russell Let me just add to that. I absolutely agree with what Tom said. And look at our gas business, I mean as big as our gas business is and the fact that our prices – customer prices are down 60%, I mean, this is a good opportunity to put the infrastructure in place now without putting a real burden on our customers because their costs are really coming down rather than going up. So that’s what we’re trying to see in the gas case that we are testing to. Ali Agha Okay. And then secondly, on a weather adjusted basis, system deliveries have been negative last two quarters and negative year-to-date. Can you just kind of elaborate like what is the trend going on there in terms of that negative trend there? John Russell The Residential and Commercial segments have been flat at best. So up a little bit one month, down a little bit the next month, sort of flat to down. Industrial has done pretty well and continues underneath to do very well. But in this year we got when customer who had an outage that they are coming back very slowly from. We don’t make a lot of money on this customer because it’s a very good rate, but it is still important to us for as business. So is there coming back up, we’re probably going to see most of that benefit show up next year than some of it this year as we had hoped and anticipated. So the outlook that I’m giving you probably still pretty good where we talk about Industrial at 2% a little bit better, and this is not of energy efficiencies. When you look out to 2016 and we are going to tell you flat to down on Residential and Commercial because candidly they are not picking up like they do out of the typical recovery after a session. So we’re going to plan on half a point of growth. We’re probably a little conservative. But we will see how that plays out. We would rather be there and not be hurt much in our self-funding plans on rates by counting on too much from sales. But good observation. We have been flat, Residential/Commercial and Industrial which typically would’ve been up more than you are seeing now is one heavy user who is just coming back from their outage, much slower than they had anticipated. Ali Agha Got it. And last question. The ongoing cost reduction programs that you have going up for the next few years as well, how do you think about that in terms of the headroom that creates and doesn’t try to quantify that in terms of the headroom that creates for rate based investment without customer rate impact. In other words, a $1 saving in O&M, what would that equate to in terms of extra CapEx spending without customer rate impacts? John Russell So an easy way to see that is slide 17 and the one that says O&M cost performance, and you can see there the dollars and how they are really happening in the next few years where from 2014 to 2018 we will take out about $100 million net, there’s a lot of ups in there as well. But net down $100 million and that’s worth 10%. So you can do that math and bring it down little bit and think $10 million is about 1%, if that helps a little bit. So then when you think about our self-funding model, we’re looking for about two points of cost reductions, so 2%. And that, mixed with the other things we have over the next five years keeps us in a position where we could grow as high as 7% and our customer rates would still be at or below inflation which we’re guessing at roughly 2%. So that gives you some of the math that you can work with. I hope that helps. Ali Agha Yes. Okay. Thanks. Thanks a lot. John Russell Thank you. Operator Our next question comes from Andrew Weisel with Macquarie Capital. Please go ahead. Andrew Weisel Hey. Good morning, guys. John, sorry to hear about surgery, having gone through on myself recently. I sympathize and definitely hope you get well quickly. John Russell Thank you. I’m feeling good. Good to be back. Andrew Weisel First question, just to elaborate on the O&M conversation you were just having. These other ideas, slide 18, roughly 50 million to 80 million of additional cost savings, can you give us a sense of timing as to when you would make some decisions on those and when the benefits might start to show up ? John Russell Sure. If you look at them in the categories that we laid them out, the two way communications as we called it, which is more mobility, that’s something that’s going in place now. But you’ve got to have your systems well-coordinated to make that work. So I will give you an idea around that. Smart meters in over the next year and two will have most of our smart meters in and with that will come some mobility plus. So that sort of a timeframe where you might see that kind of thing happen. On the grid modernization, I had push that out little bit further, because that’s better data, better line sensors, but smart meters, so I would go out several years before I would think of that as an opportunity. So you’ve got one couple of years from now, another one maybe five years from now and then go down to work management. Now that’s one where we will actually get improvements every month, every quarter, every year, and it will start slow. It is this simple. I always tell people when you are changing your process, try this yourself. If you drive a car and you back out of the driveway and you try to back out and turn the opposite direction of what you normally do. It is very hard to do. I guarantee if you try to do that over the course of one week you’re going to be wrong at least a couple of times during that week. So it takes a lot of discipline, a lot of work and then a lot of practice to make these things happen. Plus, we need some better systems for our work management and that’s going to take us some time to put in place. So I’d say you will see gradual bits of that come in over next year. Small amounts and the in a little bit more the next year and during the life of five years I think you will see a lot of that begin to happen. So I would call that one over five years. I would call technology or line loss past five years and communication something over the five-year period. And keep in mind, some of these will end up blending right in to our plans. They will actually be some of the cost reductions we’re talking about, but a lot of these will be incremental and that is a nice place to be. Andrew Weisel Okay. Thanks a lot for that detail. Next question is the five-year plan, obviously 5% to 7% growth. In the past your slide decks have showed there is upside opportunity of 6% to 8%. Is that something by year end if the Michigan Energy Law goes the way that you are hoping and ROA returns, you might make that change sooner rather than later? I know it’s a question you get pretty often in a bunch of different ways, but trying to get a sense of how soon that 6% to 8% might become a target whether it be early in the new year or not until we have a better sense of the nuclear contract or however you can help frame up the timing. John Russell Let me start and then Tom you may want to pile on this one a little bit. Let me just go back and say again we’re very comfortable with our 5% to 7% growth rate. And what has helped us is we really balance the financial performance for investors with the customer value that they get. So, what we’re constantly doing is looking at the financial, the operational, and the customer side of this business. We think today for the next several years, there’s more opportunity to invest and I’m talking not only capital, but O&M back into customer value and back into operations. Just as Tom talked about in the previous question, here’s the truck rolls and some of the things we need to improve on. That’s where I think for the next few years we really need to continue to invest and continue to grow at 5% to 7%, which is higher than our peers. What would cause this to change; I think as Tom said in the slide that up there right now, you can see if the law goes into effect, and Tom made a good point I want to emphasize, if the law goes into effect as we expect and there are shortages of capacity in Michigan, which we expected the future, customers will return to us. But it’s not going to happen overnight and it’s going to take time. So, we will roll that in as we go forward. But if you look at that in the future, if the customer’s satisfaction continues to be first quartile and if the operations continue to be best-in-class then there may be a few catalysts that Tom talked about in the out years that would drive us to that. And you saw there, the PPAs are long-term. The retail open access is shorter term than the PPA, need to replace those. That’s where I think you ought to think about for us. I mean our plan is pretty good that we have here today and there’s upsides which we wanted to show you, but right now we don’t want to commit to those yet because there is more work to do in the base business that we have. Thomas Webb So, I’ll just add the real purpose of this slide we show where it says we self-fund a lot of the growth for our customers and their rate is when we are talking about the upside opportunity, we’re trying to demonstrate short-term if ROA customers came back and longer-term when we might need to replace those PPAs and we could build gas plants or put in wind farms cheaper than the PPAs. Those are opportunities that we can put in place. And by the way there were – those things I just said as much as $3 billion. But those are opportunities we could do without hurting the self-funding part, without causing our customers to have bills going up any higher. So, that’s really the illustration there. Conversations about where we might go beyond five to seven I think are something for the future, but we want you to know we wouldn’t go there if we couldn’t take care of our customers at the same time. Andrew Weisel Okay. Then lastly on the long-term load growth, you talked about planning for 0.5%. Is that based on the current Michigan Energy Law? Or is that embedding an anticipation of higher energy efficiency when this law gets revamped between now and year end? Thomas Webb Well, it could be both. But, what we assume and our numbers now is that we would have about a 1% energy efficiency deduct from the economic growth. And when I say it could be both, the other thing that’s not in our numbers is a heavy hand on economic development where we’re beginning to see a lot of progress now. So, economic development brings in more customers, spreads that base, there could be room for energy efficiency to go up and be even higher and still get these numbers that were talking about. So I think we’ve got you in the right ballpark whatever happens. Andrew Weisel Got it. Thank you very much. John Russell You are welcome. Thank you. Operator Our next question comes from Paul Ridzon with KeyBanc. Please go ahead. Paul Ridzon Is that foot still the next resource and what’s the permanent process there look like now? John Russell Yes it is. [indiscernible] is existing site that we have. It has gas infrastructure, it has electric infrastructure in place. We currently have a permit that I think extends through this year into next year. So we have an active permit to build on that site that’s been approved by the DEQ. I do not expect to move forward with that would pretty much put the project on hold until we see what happens with legislation, but yes it’s a great site, it’s ready. The community will accept it. We’ve got some older peekers on the site right today and we could move forward if we need to. Paul Ridzon Can you give a little more detail of what part of energy legislation is the commonality around? John Russell The commonality? Paul Ridzon What aspects of it does everybody agree with? John Russell I think generally everybody agrees with start with retail open access. We have to do something about it because there’s an unfair subsidy. What we do about it, is a debate. Is it 10% with the Q? Is it full regulation which we’re moving away from full regulation more to keeping the 10% with probably a one-way door? So if you return you’ll stay with utility. The integrated resource plan is a bit of a debate because what the governor is trying to do is, put in a plan that meets the EPA clean power plan that also is best for Michigan. While at the same time, I think some of the Democrats in the House and Senate want to have a standard in there that they can count on to that, that will be part of the law regardless of what happens with the integrated resource plan so that’s a debate right now. The commonality, I think we talked about this in the past from a regulatory standpoint, self-implementation will go away but we will advance the timing of rate cases from 12 months to 10 months and if they are not been in 10 months you go into full implementation. It doesn’t – it really is. Paul Ridzon Could I just add a little bit? John Russell Yes. Thomas Webb I would just say, you’ve got two bills one in the house and one in the Senate that it moves closer together. Paul Ridzon Definitely. Thomas Webb And there is a lot of similarity in those bills, but there are some people who really don’t like certain parts and so of course now is the time people are pushing real hard. So there are individuals who are pushing real hard on different points in different ways that, but I would say the momentum is in those two bills which is pretty good. So I would say there’s a lot more commonality at this point, even with a lot of arguments going on from the few people to move ahead with the pretty good law. I think, Paul that we’re confident we will be done by the end of year because there isn’t – I mean we’ve had the hearings, the hearings are completed. We are very close and I think they are very close. If they weren’t I don’t think we would have rated this as successful by the end of the year. Here we are almost in November that in two months the thing is going to get done. Paul Ridzon The wonderful thing about that is the 2008 energy laws pretty good. Thomas Webb Yeah. John Russell And we are in quite a great position if nothing changed but this is a wonderful opportunity to address the EPA rules and to address renewables and to address our way and to address a little bit better regulation. And so there’s a lot of opportunity in there for our customers and we are thrilled about it. And I’m going to pile on just one more time, Paul is that, you also have two leaders there three with the governor, but these two leaders have spent a lot of time with Senator Nofs and Representative Nesbitt to get this thing right so that they could be aligned. They have spent a lot of time, a lot of committee hearings and they’ve been talking about for quite a while. So when they bring it together they want to make sure that the debate is limited. Paul Ridzon Where is decoupling? John Russell It is in the bills, whether it makes it or not, we will see. But it is in the bills. On the gas, it exists today. Thomas Webb So the way it is structured in there is optionality. It so it so that if utility wanted to ask the public service commission for decoupling, then they could do that. It gives the commission the authority to do that with the clarity that wasn’t there for both gas and electric last time. And then the commission and the utilities get a chance to decide if they want to put it to use when they get out there in future rate cases. Paul Ridzon And any update on Palisades? There’s been some noise around introducing nuclear plants. Any threats there in the near-term? Thomas Webb No, we don’t see any issues there. I think the filings and the things they are doing with FERC to move along and keep the plant and running successfully appeared to be all going well. You know, our only issue candidly is that at the end of the contract with us we would like to make sure for our customers that it is more economical. If it turns out that building a gas plant is a lot cheaper for our customers then we are going to have to negotiate hard to extend the contract or go with what’s best for them. But everything we know and you should ask them rather than us, they appear to be doing a good job. Paul Ridzon Then lastly, Tom, you said you prefund two years in advance, is it just interest rate hedges or can you elaborate on the process? Thomas Webb No, we’re so chicken, we are unbelievable. We have just because we got frightened in 2002 we never let go of this idea that we just want to be conservative when it comes to the financial side of the business. So for the parent, we actually reach out for two years and we don’t necessarily take the debt out, but we raise the debt so the cash is in place. We don’t do it with arbitrage or hedging or anything like that. We literally raise the cash. You are going to say what kind of conservative people are you? But we are. So we raise it. We put that in put in place and when economics are right actually call the debt and take it out, we do that. So we have the resources ready to go for two years out in time. And it’s just that simple. There’s no magic to it. Paul Ridzon And typically what is that level that you are carrying extraneous? Thomas Webb Do you mean how much cash? You know, what, this is really easy to do because we give you our maturity schedule on the parent and utility, just look at that and look forward and you can see either that there is nothing left for the next two years or whenever the debt is look at cash line and you will see it is bigger than that. So you can watch that all the time. As we move through time depending on the size of the maturities. Paul Ridzon Thank you. John Russell Thank you very much. Thomas Webb We like being chicken, by the way. Paul Ridzon We like it to. John Russell Good. Operator There are no further questions at this time. Venkat Dhenuvakonda Rao All right. Well, let me close things out. First of all, I want to thank everybody for joining us today on the call this morning. We are pleased with the quarter, and we look for to future success both this year and next year. We look forward to seeing you at EEI. So with that we will close it out and thank you for joining us. Operator This concludes today’s conference. We thank you for your participation.

Investing In Airlines Without Nosediving

Summary Two alternatives for airline investors are to pick individual airline stocks or to purchase shares of an airline industry ETF. The ETF ameliorates stock-specific risk via diversification, but allocates only small amounts to some of the most promising stocks. We present a 3rd alternative: using the hedged portfolio method to create a concentrated portfolio of top airline stocks that strictly limits stock-specific as well as other kinds of risk. A Third Way Between JETS and Individual Airline Stocks The worst sort of business is one that grows rapidly, requires significant capital to engender the growth, and then earns little or no money. Think airlines. Here a durable competitive advantage has proven elusive ever since the days of the Wright Brothers. Indeed, if a farsighted capitalist had been present at Kitty Hawk, he would have done his successors a huge favor by shooting Orville down. –Warren Buffett It’s customary to quote Warren Buffett’s bearishness on the industry when writing about airline stocks, and the Buffett quote above, from the 2007 Berkshire Hathaway (NYSE: BRK.B ) shareholder letter , is my favorite. Seeking Alpha contributor Harm Elderman chose another good one in his recent article on the US Global Jets ETF (NYSEARCA: JETS ) (“Time To Re-Examine JETS: The Airline ETF”). Elderman’s article is worth reading in full, but this graphic he included does a great job of laying out the way the JETS ETF is diversified. That diversification, as Elderman notes, offers an interesting tradeoff. Elderman points out that, due to the way JETS is structured, particularly in the second point in the graphic above, his top airline pick at midyear, Hawaiian Holdings (NASDAQ: HA ), as a second-tier domestic airline, only gets a 4% allocation in the ETF. So a JETS investor would have gotten relatively little benefit from HA’s 35% year-to-date performance. On the other hand, had HA done as poorly as another airline mentioned in Elderman’s article, Avianca Holdings (NYSE: AVH ), which is down nearly 67% year-to-date, its impact on JETS’ performance would have been similarly limited. Nevertheless, as Elderman points out, JETS has outperformed the SPDR Dow Jones Industrial Average ETF (NYSEARCA: DIA ) year to date, up 6.13%, as of Tuesday’s close, versus DIA, which was down 1.24% over the same time frame, so it may be worthy of consideration for investors looking for exposure to the airline industry without incurring the risk of picking a handful of airline stocks on their own. In this article, though, we’ll look at a third way of investing in airline stocks, one that can give us bigger exposure to stocks like HA, but with less risk than owning the ETF. When Stocks Can Be Safer Than An ETF It may seem counterintuitive that owning a handful of airline stocks could be safer than owning an ETF that holds dozens of them, but that can be the case when you hold those stocks within a hedged portfolio. Although JETS ameliorates stock-specific risk via diversification, it’s still subject to industry risk and systemic, or market risk. You can strictly limit your potential downside due to any of those risks with the hedged portfolio method . Below, we’ll show how to use that method to construct a concentrated portfolio of airline stocks using JETS’ top holdings as a starting point, for an investor who is unwilling to risk a drawdown of more than 20%, and has $500,000 that he wants to invest. First, though, let’s address the issue of risk tolerance, and how it affects potential return. Risk Tolerance and Potential Return All else equal, with a hedged portfolio, the greater an investor’s risk tolerance — the greater the maximum drawdown he is willing to risk (his “threshold”, in our terminology) – the higher his potential return will be. So, we should expect that an investor who is willing to risk a 30% decline will have a chance at higher potential returns than one who is only willing to risk a 10% drawdown. In our example, we’ll be splitting the difference and using a 20% threshold (less than a third of the drop AVH shareholders have experienced so far this year). Constructing A Hedged Portfolio We’ll recap the hedged portfolio method here briefly, and then explain how you can implement it yourself using JETS’ top holdings as a starting point. Finally, we’ll present an example of a hedged portfolio that was constructed this way with an automated tool. The process, in broad strokes, is this: Find securities with relatively high potential returns. Find securities that are relatively inexpensive to hedge. Buy a handful of securities that score well on the first two criteria; in other words, buy a handful of securities with high potential returns net of their hedging costs (or, ones with high net potential returns). Hedge them. The potential benefits of this approach are two-fold: If you are successful at the first step (finding securities with high potential returns), and you hold a concentrated portfolio of them, your portfolio should generate decent returns over time. If you are hedged, and your return estimates are completely wrong, on occasion — or the market moves against you — your downside will be strictly limited. How to Implement This Approach Finding Promising Stocks If we were looking for securities with the highest potential returns, we wouldn’t limit ourselves to airline industry stocks; instead, we’d consider a much broader universe of stocks. But since we’re concerned with airline stocks here, we’ll start with the top holdings of JETS. To quantify potential returns for JETS’ top holdings, you can sign up for Harm Elderman’s premium research via Seeking Alpha’s Marketplace. Alternatively, if you are impecunious and willing to put yourself at the mercy of Wall Street’s sell side analysts, you can use their consensus price targets as a starting point for your estimates, adjusting it based on the time frame you’re using and whether you think it is overly optimistic or not. For example, via Nasdaq, here is the analysts’ 12-month consensus price target for Hawaiian Airlines: In general, though, you’ll need to use the same time frame for each of your potential return calculations to facilitate comparisons of potential returns, hedging costs, and net expected returns. Our method starts with calculations of six-month expected returns. Finding inexpensive ways to hedge these securities Our method attempts to find optimal static hedges using collars as well as protective puts going out approximately six months. Whatever hedging method you use, for this example, you’d want to make sure that each security is hedged against a greater-than-20% decline over the time frame covered by your potential return calculations. And you’ll need to calculate your cost of hedging as a percentage of position value. Select the securities with highest net potential returns When starting from a large universe of securities, you’d want to select the ones with the highest potential returns, net of hedging costs; you can do the same here, starting with the top holdings in JETS, but, in any case, you’ll at least want to exclude any of them that has a negative potential return net of hedging costs. It doesn’t make sense to pay X to hedge a stock if you estimate the stock will return 1.93x higher. In this case, the net potential returns were > 1.93x higher when hedged with optimal collars in each case. Here’s a closer look at the optimal collar edge on HA: This optimal collar is capped at 12.06% because that’s the potential return the site calculated for HA. The idea is to have a shot at capturing that, while offsetting the cost of hedging by selling someone else the right to buy HA if it goes higher than the site expects it to. As you can see at the bottom of the image above, the cost of the put protection on HA was $3,420, or 5.41% as a percentage of position value. However, if you look at the image below, you’ll see that the income from selling the call leg of this collar was $2,610, or 4.13% as a percentage of position value. So the net cost of the collar was $810, or 1.28%.[i] Note that, although the cost of this hedge was positive, the overall cost of hedging the portfolio was negative . Possibly More Protection Than Promised In some cases, hedges such as the ones in the portfolio above can provide more protection than promised. For an example of that, see what happened to a hedge on Sketchers (NYSE: SKX ) after that stock plummeted 31%. [i] To be conservative, this optimal collar shows the puts being purchased at their ask price, and the calls being sold at their bid price. In practice, an investor can often buy the puts for less (i.e., at some point between the bid and ask prices) and sell the calls for more (again, at some point between the bid and ask). So the actual cost of opening this collar would have likely been less. The same is true of the other hedges in the portfolio, the costs of which were calculated in the same conservative manner.